Explanation
So in today's quarterfinal series between @goongoon and @lordraphael a situation occurred in game 6 (the series being led at that time by goongoon 3-2 in the BO7) in which, at 1:41 game time, Raphael (Aztec) chose a team, water deck on Tibet vs goongoon (Sioux).
Raphael paused, explained the situation, and asked for a restart. Goongoon initially and continued to oppose the restart (which was eventually granted by the caster and confirmed by a tournament admin (noel)).
Here are the relevant rules:
1.6 - Every player may restart a game BEFORE the 2 minute mark when necessary. This is allowed ONCE per map when the game is NOT casted by an official caster. Restarts for CASTED games will be determined by the caster him/herself.
1.7 - The caster is allowed to restart a game as many times as necessary for optimal play.
At 1:41 into the game the treasures and livestock distribution was thus:
-Raphael: 80c, 4 yaks
-goongoon: 80f, 40w, 1 yak
The crate start was extra coin.
Discussion
Now, what do the rules mean? When Raphael asked for a rehost, it was up to the caster to determine if the request should be granted in the spirit of "optimal play." Naturally this is open to some interpretation. Could both the decision to re and the decision not to re have been made with supporting arguments? I believe so. Here I will go over the many arguments to allow the re.
I cannot see any significant advantage based upon the above which may have been gained or lost by either player in age 1 with the exception of Lord Raphael's chosen wrong deck.
The rule states the caster may restart to allow for "optimal play." Certainly if Raphael's choosing of the wrong deck was deliberate with the intent to restart that is not in the spirit of optimal play. There is currently no evidence which would suggest this was the case. Neither player had gained a significant advantage. Raphael did not try to switch civilizations after the restart. He has historically been a mild mannered and respectful opponent throughout tournaments. It can easily be inferred the misclick was genuine, in which case, to restart uphold's the individual game's competitiveness and fair play.
What I believe many users are overlooking is the power of the caster. The asked restart is at his discretion. By all contextual evidence given this was an innocent mistake on Raphael's part. Always affording the restart to any player which asks is not what this rule allows for. In Radix's scenario I would have made it very clear the restart will be made but any further inquiries for restarts will likely be judged to be deliberate and denied regardless of the player. Similarly Radix's discretion may also have determined no restart should be granted which also would have been fair.
At which point may you ask, "why not restart?" When a game is under 2:00 minutes and no player has gained an advantage, when it is the quarterfinals and only a BO7, when there are viewers and (ideally, players) who prefer to see fair play, in a small community, in tournaments run by and funded by volunteers, does it not make sense? For remember the restart is only to be considered in this scenario and this scenario alone. You may not infer whether a restart should be granted by saying other players may try to abuse it -- it has no relevance to the current situation.
Handling
Whether decided to restart or not, with both decisions being defensible, the importance is rationale in the interpretation of tournament rule, decisiveness, and assertive enforcement of the decision.
Note the rule does not strictly refer to a tournament admin. In another rule stated:
2.2 - Players and caster(s) may request during a match that measures be taken to reduce lag. At the discretion of the tournament admins or casters if no admins are available, a streamed match may have its casters switched out, have its number of casters reduced, or be casted from replays.
it may be assumed that if no tournament admin is available the caster is the next most powerful individual.
Should at least one tournament admin be required to be online always during quarterfinal and later games? Arguably yes. Is this more difficult to achieve during a weekday because of professional obligations? Yes. Note that a tournament admin, noel, did give a response. It's timeliness may be questioned.
Should casters (and players) be more aware of the ruleset? Arguably yes. Was the rule-set consulted? Yes -- the timeliness may be questioned.
Are players' opinions to be taken into consideration when the caster decides to re? No. Is the opponent often asked to re in good sport? Yes. Should the opponent be specifically asked to re? No -- it adds a lot of pressure to them to say yes or look like a poor sport. They may offer their support voluntarily if they wish.
Is a player who is very against a caster's decision to restart a game to be reasoned with? No. The caster should explain themselves in text as well as in voice to the stream. If the player disagrees and refuses to cooperate an ultimatum should be made: join the game in __ minutes or the map with be awarded via admin win to the other player and the series will continue.
What we can all do is learn from these situations, ideally, and try to act with sense and class.